git_push

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining possible side effects, failure conditions, authentication requirements, or whether it modifies the remote state. The description is purely a verb phrase with no behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified for a tool with three parameters and no annotations. It is appropriately concise but lacks necessary detail, making it merely adequate rather than exemplary.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (3 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain what happens on push (e.g., whether it pushes current branch vs other branches), return values, error scenarios, or any integration with sibling Git tools. The description is too minimal to support safe and correct use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds no information about the three parameters (repo, branch, remote). The schema covers only 'repo' with a description; 'branch' and 'remote' are left completely undocumented. The tool description does not compensate for this low schema coverage, leaving agents without guidance on how to correctly fill parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Push to the repo's remote' uses a specific verb ('push') and identifies the resource ('repo's remote'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling Git tools like git_commit (commit locally) and git_pull (pull from remote). It is immediately clear what operation this tool performs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as git_commit or git_pull. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., having commited changes, needing to push a specific branch) or when not to use it. The usage context is only implied by the verb 'push'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.